Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dopefish

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Commander Keen#Dopefish. I see a rough consensus that no independent article is warranted and the content should be merged somewhere, and less agreement on the merge target. If needed, the target can be further discussed on the talk page. T. Canens (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dopefish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It only had passing mentions as an industry meme in a video game reliable sources custom Google search and Google Books search. A brief mention at (and redirect to) Commander Keen#Legacy should suffice, based on what we have. czar 02:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. czar 02:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails the WP:GNG. (Notability is not measured in the number of trivial cameos and allusions.) Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I'm open to a Merge if it helps with building a consensus, since there are passing mentions here and there. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Tom Hall#Dopefish. As a video game easter egg, Pisces swimatus gets an impressive 37,700 hits in the Reliable Sources for Video Games custom search. There is a mention in the book Triadic Game Design: Balancing Reality, Meaning and Play. Mobygames has a list of games with dopefish. The dopefish makes an appearance at Know Your Meme and has an entire web site devoted to it. Engadet calls it the Bruce Campbell of gratuitous cameos. Unfortunately the book and the sources I perused in the RS/VG search are not quite in depth. A little history, then a list of games. Unless are in depth sources out there, the fish fails WP:GNG notability criteria. But there seems abundant information in RS to support a merge of verifiable facts to Commander Keen#Legacy or better yet, to Tom Hall#Dopefish, the designer of the character. --Mark viking (talk) 03:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- There are sufficient reliable sources. I understand Mark's reservations about the strength of the sources, but I think the sheer plethora of sources talking about the dopefish, independently of talking about either Keen or Tom Hall, supports keeping it as its own article. Sure, the sources don't talk about it for very long, but they all think it's worth an independent mention. We should too. If consensus disagrees with me, at the very least merge, don't delete, but I still support keeping it. I might even support renaming it to "List of games containing Dopefish" or something similar, that then explains what dopefish is. Because honestly, this is a notable list (according to our sources), in addition to a notable meme. Absolutely don't delete. Fieari (talk) 02:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you point out which sources are third party and discuss the subject in significant detail? All I'm seeing is a bunch of trivial passing mentions... Sergecross73 msg me 13:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge to Tom Hall#Dopefish. With around 38K hits on the reliable sources for video games search it's definitely notable enough to not get rid of entirely. I'd prefer a keep because Dopefish is what I'd look for if I wanted to find out more about dopefish, but 'merge' if that isn't an option mh. (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What do we even merge though? The entire article isn't encyclopedic. We've got some extremely pointless unsourced commentary by the creator (""I just drew this stupid little fish"), and a massive WP:TRIVIA list of every minor cameo the character is. Where's the sources covering it in detail? Where's the reception? Where's the meaningful creation content? This looks like something slapped together on an inactive wikia or geocities page, not an encyclopedia entry. Sergecross73 msg me 13:15, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• On the fence between a weak keep and a merge, but adding my thoughts since input was requested at WT:VG. Regulars at WP:VG probably know by now that I tend to give fictional character articles the benefit of the doubt in notability disputes, and perhaps that is again the case here, yet the inclusionist in me thinks there's just enough RS coverage to scrape by the GNG, but only just. Some assertions of Dopefish's significance are made, from a few minutes of source hunting: PCGamesN's article on video game easter eggs has an entry for Dopefish, where they write "Like so many inexplicably popular means and in-jokes in videogames, Dopefish is truly eternal"; Engadget notes that "PC gamers of a certain age will have very fond memories of the Commander Keen series -- usually trying to pogo toward a hard-to-reach gem or frantically escaping a Dopefish"; VG24/7 calls Dopefish "one of those delightful little pieces of gaming arcana"; IGN mentions Dopefish in Commander Keen's entry into "Luke Reilly's Top 30 Games of All Time"; Stuff.tv's easter egg list again features Dopefish, calling it "Gaming’s most enduring egg". USA Today echoes this sentiment, labelling it a "hidden gem". Some foreign-language sources may also be usable. I will concede that these are mostly odd mentions here-and-there with no real depth to it, though. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:42, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 13:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Google news search shows a brief mention in USA Today within the past week in an article primarily about Oculus Rift: [1]. If you're the kind of person that's inclined to say 'that's not significant coverage!' you're missing the point: the coverage of this fictional element is enduring, and has made it to one of the biggest newspapers in the world this week. Let that sink in for a bit. FWIW, I'd never heard of it before, but if I can find that with a 15-second Google News search, I strongly suspect WP:BEFORE was not adequately followed. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Enduring, but minor—a running gag with no in-depth coverage in any of the sources cited. The article is better suited for TV Tropes as currently compiled. (Also, re: your strong BEFORE suspicions, why don't you look at the article's history first?) czar 17:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"But it would be better covered in X" where X is usually Wikia, but TV Tropes works, is NOT a reason for deletion. There is plenty of overlap between Wikipedia and those other websites when a topic meets inclusion criteria for both, like this one does. Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with your argument if it was an explanation as to why a merge stance would be warranted, but I just don't see how we're going to write an article about the subject with all these passing mentions. Sergecross73 msg me 13:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty easy, actually. What we have is a decent start from which to improve. Jclemens (talk) 20:23, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You consider a short, largely unsourced "overview" section and a massive unsourced list of every cameo its ever had, as a "decent start"? I would have called it one big violation of WP:V and WP:TRIVIA... Sergecross73 msg me 12:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and no merge as there's nothing noticeably convincing for its own article despite it obviously simply being best connected to the series itself. SwisterTwister talk 00:35, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Merge to Commander Keen#Legacy, I think it would fit better there than at Tom Hall. There are several citations already there as well. DopefishJustin (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Selective Merge to Commander Keen § Dopefish (within the "Legacy" section). I also prefer this merge target over one to Tom Hall, because the former already has content about the significance about the topic to a greater extent than the latter article does. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:30, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of consensus, I am fine with either of the merge targets above. It is important to preserve this bit of game developer culture, but any of these merge targets are good. --Mark viking (talk) 20:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Being relisted twice suggests no consensus. Is it likely to be relisted again or is a decision going to be made? mh. (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Being relisted a second time is fine, especially if comments keep coming in (which they have.) A third relist is unlikely though, next time we'll likely have someone make a call on this. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete NO evidence of notability .. no third party sources on significant coverage Samat lib (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I'm fine with the merge rationales, but you saying "NO evidence of notability, no third party sources" suggests you haven't actually bothered reading the discussion above. Satellizer el Bridget ^(Talk) 11:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - The topic should definitely be mentioned somewhere, but it doesn't seem to have enough significance for a stand-alone article. TTN (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Almafeta (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• This is WP:NOTAVOTE - arguments without any rationale are not taken into consideration. Sergecross73 msg me 15:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/Redirect - I was really hoping to find enough to keep. This is in that same sort of persistent trivia/easter egg/joke/whatever as Wilhelm scream, Hidden Mickey, etc. (but apparently less well covered by mainsteam sources). There's enough to merit inclusion in Hall's article, though, and to maintain a redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 05:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.